NEWSLETTER, PSU-AAUP

PSU-AAUP Member News

September 25, 2014 / PSU-AAUP

Fall 2014 Member News

(Click on links below to read article)

NTTF Seniority and Multi-year contracts
Since ratification of the new agreement the Collective Bargaining Team has been in negotiations with administration over implementation of the multiyear contract provision.The contract provides that 80% of NTTF faculty members with seniority at 4 years be provided a multi-year contract. PSU’s original intention was to extend seniority status to faculty based upon a June 15, 2014 run date. Of the 340 to be employed in 2014-15, this would make 209 members had seniority and 172 members were eligible for multiyear contracts.
PSU-AAUP responded with a request to do the seniority run effective September 15, 2014 to capture whatever summer employment we could to increase the number of multi-year contracts. They agreed, and this increased the number of multiyear contracts extended to 183 faculty members.

Ratified Agreement on New Ranks
As previously reported, PSU-AAUP reached agreement on New Rank Salaries and implementation. The implementation MOU will not be in the agreement so keep the above link handy. The contract is in the process of being re-printed in a limited run- previous versions should be recycled.

New Contract available for download
The New Contract can be downloaded here.

Unfair Labor Practice update

You may recall that on March 9, just prior to the strike vote on March 12, PSU sent a link to the entire campus community with a link to FAQs where PSU threatened to cut off the email of any AAUP member who went on strike. They also advised that they would enforce the demonstration guidelines, a very old policy that had previously not been enforced. It also had provisions that violated the first amendment by barring the use of picket signs.
PSU-AAUP found both threats to be unlawful and filed an Unfair Labor Practice Charge against PSU regarding the unlawful conduct.
Over the last few months PSU and PSU-AAUP have been trying to find common ground on the outstanding issues to make the hearing unnecessary. On September 2 we reached agreement on the Demonstration Guidelines where the University agreed:

Suspend enforcement of the current demonstration guidelines
Adopt an interim rule that prohibits the use of picket signs only indoors
Initiate a process to create a new demonstration policy that at a minimum allowed the use of picket signs outdoors, allow traditional picketing, and provide that PSU provide warnings and a fair opportunity to correct violations prior to the issuance of citations or shutting down a demonstration, and provide for evenhanded enforcement of the policy
To bargain with AAUP over the new policy once created
To issue a notice to the community about the demonstration guidelines as a clarification of the March 9 notice.
PSU-AAUP advised the Employment Relations Board that the complaint associated with the Demonstration Guidelines be withdrawn.

PSU and PSU-AAUP did not, however, find any common ground on the threat to cut off email of striking workers. The hearing was scheduled and took place on September 3, 2014. PSU’s prime contention is that strikers should be considered akin to terminated employees and have access to the workplace disallowed in the same way access is denied to employees who have separated. PSU-AAUP provided evidence that this was contrary to Oregon law. It was a full day hearing. We will submit briefs to the administrative law judge by October 2, 2014 and we look forward to receiving the ALJs decision this Fall.

Grievance Mediation Update

PSU-AAUP and PSU attorneys met three times in August to address three outstanding grievances: the elimination of ECTC, the salary reduction of an academic professional, and the layoff of academic professionals in the Office of Academic Innovation.
All three grievance address, at least in part, PSU’s not following Article 22 of the collective bargaining agreement regarding layoffs of academic professionals.

Elimination of Early Childhood Training Center
We are pleased to share that we reached agreement on the ECTC. As the agreements involve individual employment matters we are not able to share explicit details, we can share that the employees received monetary settlements they, and PSU-AAUP, deemed satisfactory; and PSU will issue a letter to the Head Start community and put a notice on their website that provides clarification that the decision to eliminate the long standing program was not a negative reflection on the employees.

Reduction of Pay of Academic Professional
We are pleased to share we reached agreement on the reduction of pay of academic professional based upon the inappropriate use of Article 17 Section 5. As the agreement involve individual employment matters we are not able to share explicit details, we can share that we effected an agreement that enables the academic profession to remain employed on terms they, and PSU-AAUP, generally deem are favorable to her based upon the actual work they will be doing.

Layoff in the Office of Academic Innovation
We reached agreement in principle on the on this difficult grievance. We hope to finalize the agreement in the next few days.

Contractual Grievances on their way to Arbitration

Academic Professional Denied Representation in Disciplinary Meeting
An Academic Professional received a calendar invite from their supervisor for a meeting that included Anne Lewis, from HR. She was advised it was a meeting where an oral reprimand with a notation to file would be imposed. The member asked that the meeting be rescheduled to a time that a PSU-AAUP representative could accompany them. HR representative Anne Lewis denied her request, advising she was not entitled to have union representation for the imposition of discipline. PSU-AAUP filed a grievance challenging the change in past practice as PSU-AAUP has been accompanying members facing discipline since 1978. The grievance was denied at level one, then at level two by Provost Sona Andrews. Scheduling is in process for presentation of the grievance to Chief of Staff Lois Davis at level 3.

Other Employment Issues

New Hire not provided a contract consistent with the position advertised
A new hire responded to an advertisement for a 12 month, 1.0 FTE fully benefited position with employment commencing July 1, 2014. The candidate engaged in good faith in the screening process and was eventually offered the position, accepted the position quit employment at another University and moved across the country and started work on July 1. The contract they received after they arrived, however, was 9 months commencing September 16, with benefits commencing September 16, and a summer stipend with no benefits over the summer.
This is may have violated state law. ORS 659.815(1) provides:

No person, firm, company, corporation, or association of any kind employing labor, shall, either in person or through any agent, manager or other legal representatives, induce, influence, persuade or engage workers to change from one place to another in this state or bring workers of any class or calling into this state to work in any of the departments of labor by . . . Any false or deceptive representation or false advertising, concerning the amount or character of the compensation to be paid for any work . . . .

The new hire was forced to accept COBRA benefits from their former employer, which PSU agreed to reimburse. The new hire’s commencement of retirement benefits, however, was not resolved and will not be able to commence the waiting period for PERS until September 16.
This is not the first time that PSU presented an employment contract to a new hire that was substantively different than the job post, and substantively different than the verbal offer. In a notable previous occurrence:

• PSU advertised an academic professional position as .75 FTE and the annualized salary at 1.0 FTE. The letter of offer, however, was at a salary of .75 FTE, or 25% less than advertised. The letter of offer was presented after the new hire had resigned their previous position and accepted employment at PSU and represented a significant pay cut from previous employment. Despite what the LOA said and to make matters worse, PSU paid the new hire at the 1.0 rate for a full year before catching the error. They demanded repayment of the 25% immediately. PSU-AAUP was able to get the matter resolved so that the new hire did not have to repay the overpayment of wages, but the pay was reduced to the .75 FTE amount. This was a financial shock to the employee, who was a single mother. She struggled financially for several years until she was eventually able to get additional hours.

Fixed Term Faculty Member forced to have double payroll deductions for Health insurance premiums over HR error
A PSU-AAUP member properly arranged pregnancy leave and to extend leave with an unpaid leave of absence to care for the new born. As a qualifying event, she cancelled health insurance and went on her husband’s policy with his employer. When she came back to work after her unpaid leave HR improperly deducted insurance premiums from her paycheck. She was, thus, having deductions made in her paycheck and her husband’s paycheck for her health insurance premiums. HR admitted their error and offered to make her whole by reimbursing her for the premiums being deducted from her husband’s salary for her premium. Then, in processing the payment, HR advised that they would deduct payroll taxes from the settlement, leaving her several hundred dollars per month in the hole. As we go to print the issue remains unresolved.

PSU Board of Trustees Update

Armed Police at PSU
On September 11, 2014 the Portland State University Board of Trustees approved the establishment of a Special Committee on Campus Public Safety for the purpose of confirming the need for an armed sworn police department at Portland State University. CPSO Chief Phil Zerzan and Interim Vice President FADM Kevin Reynolds presented a fast track of public forums for campus wide input and discussion, and then a fast track for a board of trustees decision to create the police force, as follows:

October 6: presentation to the faculty senate
October 7: Campus Safety Forum
October 10: Administrative Briefing to PSU faculty and staff
October/November: meetings with ASPSU
December: Trustees meeting to approve creation of the armed sworn police force

Zerzan and Reynolds provided extensive support documentation to the Board to back up their assertion that PSU needs an armed, sworn police department. They estimate the cost of the department to be approximately $2 million per year.
The PSU-AAUP Executive Council will discuss the matter in detail at its upcoming retreat and bring feedback and recommendations back to the membership for their consideration.

New Strategic Plan for PSU to be developed. What is PSU to become now?
With the adoption of this resolution, the PSU Board of Trustees has begun the strategic planning process to re-define what PSU is to become under the new governance model. The President has promised to include faculty- union and faculty senate appointees alike- to inform the decision. Stay tuned for more details.

PSU-AAUP President Pam Miller gives 10 minute presentation to Board about PSU-AAUP
This was the first formal introduction the Board was to receive about the Association, our membership, our goals and priorities, and the role we have played in at PSU. Pam formally requested that PSU-AAUP have a permanent place on each Board of Trustee agenda alongside the students to report so that we can develop a relationship outside the those times when the issues get contentious in bargaining. We will advise on PSU BOT President Nickerson’s response to our request when it is received.

PSU-AAUP News

Internal Organizer position
The PSU-AAUP Internal Organizer position description is in the process of being revised and we expect to post the position at www.unionjobs.com around October 1.The position will be responsible for supporting the CORE organizer group which carried internal outreach to the membership during the contract action campaign. The Executive Council will decide soon if the position will be part time or full time based upon the anticipated costs of office space, discussed below.

The hunt for office space continues
One of the lessons learned is that we can’t have three employees in the current PSU-AAUP office, and we definitely can’t run a contract action campaign with contractors and many activists in that space on top of the Association’s regular work. We are now working with Capacity Commercial to find suitable office space in one of the office buildings interspersed with PSU buildings in the campus areas. We have seen a number of possibilities and the Executive Council will take up the matter at their retreat.
We are also looking for a temporary single office space to house the internal organizer beginning around the beginning of November. As usual, PSU-AAUP is very low on the hierarchy for space allocation by the space committee. If anyone knows of a single office in their department we might be able to use please contact Phil Lesch, Executive Director.

National AAUP and AAUP-Oregon Dues increase
Member Dues are currently .888%. The National AAUP annual meeting approved a dues increase effective January 1, 2015 of 2.12% (rounded). Phase Two of AAUP-Oregon dues will be implemented on November 1, 2015 from .05% to .10%. Pursuant to Article 7 of the PSU-AAUP Bylaws, on November 1, 2014 PSU-AAUP dues will thus rise to .938%. On January 1, 2015 PSU-AAUP dues will rise to .958%. We have not been noticed if AAUP-CBC dues will be increased, but if AAUP-CBC dues are increased by the same %, then PSU-AAUP dues will increase an additional .001% to .959%.

AAUP-Oregon News

Collective Bargaining Summit September 24 at University of Oregon
The collective bargaining teams from the faculty unions at all seven universities convened at University of Oregon on September 24, 2014 to discuss common themes and interests in bargaining. It was a productive meeting, and there was keen interest in working together on common issues in this upcoming bargaining cycle- of which there are many. There was overall concern that as the Universities decentralized and became autonomous, and as they moved away from commonalities forced upon them by the former Oregon University System, higher education faculty would have to work together, to create and defend their own definition of an “Oregon Standard” in quality higher education. The leaders of the collective bargaining teams will continue to meet until the next Collective Bargaining Summit. We will report out on what we can on the joint strategies that come.

Legislative Summit Saturday October 25 at Oregon State University
The legislative committees of the collective bargaining chapters will convene a legislative summit for Saturday October 25 to discuss ways the collective bargaining and advocacy chapters can work together, with our higher education coalition partners, on issues of common concern in the 2015 legislative session. AFT-Oregon representatives and Oregon Student Association representatives will be invited to join us. If you are interested in attending the summit… or about seeing how you can get involved in the work of the AAUP-Oregon legislative committee, please contact Phil Lesch.

The summit will be followed by the AAUP-Oregon Executive Committee meeting, which is open to the AAUP-Oregon membership.

AAUP National News

Nominations open for District Representative II representative on the AAUP National Council
Are you passionate about higher education and the AAUP’s core principles? If so, or if you have a colleague who fits the bill, you can nominate yourself or a colleague as a candidate for the national AAUP Council, the Association’s governing body. The Council is responsible for overseeing the affairs of the AAUP, including setting dues, overseeing finances, establishing standing committees, and promoting the exchange of ideas among the membership, the leadership, and the staff. The Council generally meets in person twice a year in Washington, DC; between meetings, it conducts business via frequent e-mail discussions and conference calls.
All members of the Association in good standing, with the exception of associate members, are eligible to be elected to Council positions and to nominate other eligible members. The 2014 Nominating Committee seeks a diverse group of candidates with experience in the AAUP at the local, state, or national level.
Nine three-year positions are open for election: Two at-large Council positions, and one Council position in each of these geographical districts: I, II, IV, V, VII, VIII, and X.*

Nomination Procedures
To nominate themselves for the Council or to nominate another eligible member, individuals must submit the following information to the Nominating Committee:

1. The position for which the individual is being nominated.
2. The name, institution, and e-mail address of the individual being nominated.
3. The name, institution, and e-mail address of the individual making the nomination (if not self-nominating).

In addition, endorsements by letter or e-mail from six AAUP members (one of whom may be the nominee) must also be provided to the Nominating Committee. Endorsements must cite the specific position for which the individual is being endorsed and the name, institutional affiliation, and e-mail address of the endorser. Note that nominees to a district Council position must be endorsed by at least six eligible members employed in that district. To ensure that all six endorsements arrive by the deadline, we encourage you to collect and submit them together in one letter or e-mail.
Complete procedures are set forth in the AAUP Constitution. All materials must be received by the AAUP by December 14, 2014. Please send nominations by e-mail to nominations@aaup.org or by surface mail to AAUP Nominating Committee, 1133 Nineteenth Street NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20036.

The Nominating Committee will submit its final report to the Council by December 21. All proposed nominees who meet the eligibility requirements will have their names included on the ballot for the national Council elections in spring 2015.
*Council districts open for election are I (Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah); II (Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming); IV (Arkansas, District of Columbia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, Virginia); V (Alabama, Canada, Florida, Foreign, Georgia, Guam, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Virgin Islands, West Virginia); VII (New Jersey); VIII (New York); and X (Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island).

For more information, please visit: http://www.aaup.org/about/elected-leaders/elections.